“Just remember, if you flinch from your destiny, you’ll never achieve your true greatness — you didn’t choose to be chosen, but being chosen means you have to choose.”

–

Charlie Jane Anders

==============

“Souls are funny things. They stay constant even when the outside changes, or when the heart makes mistakes.

Souls don’t really care about good or bad, right or wrong — they’re just true.”

—

Miranda July

=======================

Wow.

If you flinch … that Anders quote is fucking awesome.

I had no idea who Charlie Jane Anders was when I read this quote and I am now glad I found out who she is.

Charlie Jane Anders

She is an American transgender fiction author and commentator. Author of All the Birds in the Sky, coming January 26, 2016 from Tor Books. Raconteur, bon vivant, wild and perilous soul. Willing to be a bad influence for a good cause.

Anyway.

I am glad I did some research because I gained a better perspective on the depth of this quote.

On its surface I just liked it.

I like the thought of it.

I like the truth of it.

I like the circumspection aspect of it.

I like the aspirational perspective of it <I do believe each of us has a destiny if we elect to achieve it>.

And I like the simplicity … and complexity within … of it.

But.

Coming from her point of view brings this quote to an entirely different level.

It shifts from merely communicating in platitudes to generating a deeper understanding that life chooses your destiny for you, everyone is included in that “you,” but it’s up to you to choose whether you accept your destiny.

And it is there, for all to see, in the quote … it is easy to flinch from your destiny.

Incredibly easy.

And that is what makes her thought a little more powerful because it is easy to see how she would have flinched. And … just guessing … probably did at some point.

And, yet, this woman who was born in New England and was herself a choirboy.

And, yet, this woman who has stated that she has been cross dressing since “definitely in my early teens.”

And, yet, this woman who has also self-identified herself as genderqueer and a trans woman.

She chose.

Yeah.

At some point she chose … yes … she chose … to follow the destiny life chose for her.

No excuses … she just chose.

Easy?

Yikes.

I imagine not.

Inspirational?

You bet.

I respect her. I am envious of her strength of character. But I am most likely most envious of her ability to access, and embrace, some self truth. Maybe I could suggest she peeked into her soul and decided she would choose to embrace it rather than flinch from it.

I say that because, ultimately, I imagine the stability and security of our souls needs to be grounded in some self truth. Ok. Some harsh unfettred self truth. The kind of harshness that could … well … make you flinch.

You come face to face with some shit you more than likely would rather not face about yourself and then … well … you admit that what you face is you.

That’s, more often than not, harsh.

You flinch a little.

But in flinching at this point you are empowered to not flinch when facing outwards.

You face your sins.

You face your flaws.

You face your failures.

You face the harsh unfettered truth.

=====================

“I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another.

I have no tongue for it.”

—

Arthur Miller

============

I believe any hope of greatness … any hope of attaining our destiny … always resides within us. I would also argue the harshest evaluation of your hope resides within the harsh unfettered truth within.

Now.

All of this may sound like only personal Life thinking.

It is not.

I use these same words these days with business people about businesses and companies. Businesses are given every opportunity to flinch. And I would suggest that most businesses, and business people, do flinch.

Shit.

The world makes it fairly easy to flinch.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no black and white and only grays.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no facts and only common sense.

In today’s world in which there seems to be no truth and only lies.

That said.

Not flinching resides in the power of self <as an individual r as a business> and naked unfettered truths.

Those who strip themselves naked of anything but truth will stand out not for their nakedness but rather for their clarity of who and what they are. These will be deemed the true authentic and the true credible and the true commendable or capable of winning favorable acceptance in people’s minds.

That is a harsh unfettered truth for the few who desire distinction and success in today’s world.

“You’ve got to think about the big things while your doing small things, so that all the small things go in the right direction.”

–

Alvin Toffler

===============

Life doesn’t really make it easy for us. It kind of encourages us to focus on big stuff … and little stuff … at the exact same time <all the while encouraging us to focus on one thing and do it well>.

At exactly the same time … well … we all seem to be encouraged to want a ‘big life’ or ‘live life as big as you can’ which implies ignoring little over big.

Do something really big thing.

Do something important.

Do something substantial.

I won’t argue that most of us get the “big definition” wrong <because the truth is that identifying the ‘big’ for us is closer to 0% success than 100%>.

But what I would suggest is … oddly enough … we do more big things than we may think.

Huh?

Frequently, we see incidents in life as “little things” and later we learn to our regret we recognize the same incidents as “big things.”

While the Toffler quote sums it up well I would be tempted to add “… so all the small things go in the right direction and you end up near(er) your big thing <whatever that may be>.”

I would suggest that it is in the juggling of the small within the big that is the challenge.

And not everyone is good at juggling.

Some people are really really good at doing the small things.

Some people are really really good at thinking about the big things.

But few people are good at both.

Regardless.

Big things are seemingly easy to do because we all see them. And they appear easy to check off our “to do” list. But, inevitably, it seems like everything really does come down to the little things, which unfortunately, we have a nasty habit of overlooking <not necessarily on purpose>.

<emphasis here> … that’s bad <that overlooking thing>.

It can be a big mistake <which is a big thing by the way> and a large creation of stress in our life <another big thing>. It’s a big mistake because those small things most often have a large impact to alleviate some of these potentially negative ‘big’ things in our lives. Ok. Take a moment and think about it. Stress can be partially managed by doing a couple of really small things … like … show up on time …. and listen and … well … you get it.

Whew.

Small stuff sounding types of things aren’t they?

Yeah.

Sometimes small important things sound small. But do big things. Make a big impact.

Anyway.

By now I imagine you get where I am going with this little post.

Little things that are big.

I write all this because while I believe Alvin was talking about actual “doing stuff” I thought I would remind everyone that the truly impactful little things have absolutely nothing to do with doing but rather HOW you do.

And while that sound very ‘self oriented’ I would point out it is not — because the big things, the truly big things, are not individual things, not “I did” things, they are ‘we’ things or group things or shared things.

Really BIG things may be ‘I’ generated but they are “we” implemented to be truly big. And in that belief we can often find the little things needed so we can be sure the big things happen.

All this leads me to ‘hard choices’ because little or big … all things require making decisions.

Aw shit.

………. zig zag mistake …………….

Decisions.

Suffice it to say decisions, in general, are hard to make <even by people who are quite capable of making a good hard decision>.

==========

“Oh, don’t mind me. I’m just silently outperforming all of you on my own terms.”

——–

INTP Musings

===========

Decisions are hard because … well … they inevitably harden the person who makes them.

Decisions demand you to harden yourself in some ways. You have to harden yourself, insulate yourself a little, from the human aspects of the decision and focus on the bigger picture and the horizon. Please don’t mistake this for minimizing the ‘little people’ or the individual or even ‘not caring’.

This is the forest or trees type decisions leaders <and all people at some point> need to make. It may sound callous but it is just like firefighting a big fire … burn some trees to save the forest.

Sacrifice some little things to save a big thing.

Oh. And sometimes sacrifice a shitload of trees <little things> to save the forest <big thing>.

Regardless.

These little day to day hard decisions, when they are made, harden you as a person. It’s just life. It’s not personal.

Here is what makes it even tougher.

I believe all of us who make hard decisions worry a little bit that it … well … becomes too easy.

That we become so hard that we lose sight of everything else.

As things proceed in our lives and we make choice after choice after choice each decision affects you … that is your personal toll.

That is what Life demands of you.

That is the price Life charges you.

Now.

Having said that.

Not everyone will make the hard decision. We will inevitably made soft decisions. Soft decisions that possibly gave a glimmer of hope by saving some little things but the danger is always that once you begin the slippery slope of making soft decisions on little things <and gravity really takes over> the glimmer becomes dimmer and dimmer over time <and the big thing is lost>.

My thought is that it seems to me that we, in everyday Life, have become so fearful of doing the wrong thing that we have become slaves to “what is stated <by some expert or others> to be the right thing to do.”

Even on the frickin’ little things

In the end.

I truly believe the so called big things are not really that big <even dreams I will say>.

In fact.

Most often it is the little things that are the truly important things.

So when someone tells you that you don’t “think big” maybe you can take some solace that they don’t “think small” and you are happier because of that.

So when someone tells you that you focus on little things too much maybe you can take solace that you just don’t fear making the hard choices in the moment.

So when someone tells you that you are 0% sure of what is important to you take solace in that you believe all things are important.

All little things are big and all big things are really little. That may sound overwhelming but … well … if you do maybe you will pay attention enough to make the decisions when they matter.

“Fate is like a strange, unpopular restaurant filled with odd little waiters who bring you things you never asked for and don’t always like.”

=

Lemony Snicket

So.

I wrote thoughts on fate on sept. 22nd 2013 in a post called ‘seize fate’:I mention that post because I used what Beethoven actually said … “I shall seize fate by the throat.”

Uhm.

That means Beethoven would have strangled a shitload of odd little waiters.

Ok.

It’s easy to think of Fate as odd little waiters who are some strange unknown people guiding our direction in life … often by giving us the unasked for dishes.

This is kind of an uncomfortable thought. There is some randomness to it that ca make you a little uneasy.

Yeah. I admit. I like the thought that we have some destiny … some fate … awaiting us. I like the thought that there is some reason for being here.

Yup.

Every.

Single.

One.

Of.

Us.

Anyway.

The struggle I imagine I have in my head with regard to this whole Fate and having odd little waiters bringing my fate to me is … well … that I like doing … and not waiting.

And the thought of permitting something theoretical like ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’ to take me by the hand and lead me somewhere doesn’t sit well with me.

And I also imagine that part of Life is figuring all this shit out.

Figure it out?

Fate is a combination of reacting <to circumstances thrust upon you like dishes you never ordered> and being proactive <thrusting yourself into and against circumstances>.

This also suggests the ability in shifting the course of things.

Yikes.

Whenever people attempt to shift the course of things … things can go horribly wrong.

But doing nothing … and not making the attempt?

Maybe just as risky.

But … here’s the deal.

Fate is more than assuming history … or what will be … has a shape.

Fate actually assumes in some way you have a role in shaping it.

—

“Fate makes demands of flesh and blood.

And what does it most often demand?

Flesh and blood.”

=

Russian proverb

—-

And this means meeting the dreams of fate … flesh & blood … or what is called ‘Kairos.’

Kairos is the ability to adapt to and take advantage of changing circumstances. In other words … kairos suggests you can manage what fate has in store for you if you manage the circumstances as they arise.

This also suggests that fate has a whole kitchen of possible dishes to serve you … not just one. And depending on what you do and how you act and what you say … the odd little waiter may end up bringing you something other than what it thought it was going to bring you a moment ago.

This also suggests some boldness.

Not boldness like ‘fate favors the brave’ but rather having the audacity to believe in this wild and wacky and somewhat chaotic world … you can actually have a say in your fate.

This also means that even if you balk at the concept of ‘being bold’ … suffice it to say that fate favors those who actually show up:

Interestingly … it was JK Rowling who said something along the same lines …

—

“Destiny is a name often given in retrospect to choices that had dramatic consequences.”

=

J.K. Rowling

—-

Showing up is what it is all about.

It seems almost weird to even suggest this … but … simply showing up can have dramatic consequences.

Yup.

Even something as unspectacular as ‘showing up’ can be a choice which has dramatic consequences to your destiny.

That is an important thought because a shitload of us think of fate when looking in a rear view mirror.

And often we do so without thinking about the choices … and the choices WE made … led us to the place where we saw what we saw in that rear view mirror.

And I imagine we rarely think about showing up as a key choice with some dramatic consequences.

Regardless.

You know … I imagine we all have to believe in some way we are here for a reason.

And that is where Fate or Destiny resides.

Somewhere in that ever elusive ‘reason.’

What do I mean?

Fate and destiny are the end accomplishment.

But it’s kind of up to you to figure out what that destination is.

Unfortunately fate or destiny … well … they tend to be quiet fellows <or women>.

They tend to keep their thoughts to themselves.

Even worse?

They have a tendency to hide so you can’t sit them down and say ‘what is my fate?’ … ‘what is my destiny?’ … ‘tell me where to go’.

That makes life a little tricky because it makes some really important shit unable to be seen. So you have to make some guesses. Or maybe we should call it some ‘leaps of faith.’ Some leaps within … well … Kairos.

So.

I read somewhere there is the seen and the unseen.

That not all is certainty in the world because if there were … there would be no opportunity for faith.

In other words … there would never be any opportunities for a ‘leap of faith.’

Well.

Certainty sounds pretty frickin’ nice … but … it would also seem to be a pretty dull world without that ‘faith.’

<at least in my eyes>

Therefore.

Sometimes you kind of have to reach out … either with faith … or maybe out of sheer frustration … and grab one of the odd little waiters by the throat and say “here is my fate … this is my destiny … now go back to the kitchen and return this frickin’ dish.”

So, in the end, maybe Fate sometimes does need to be seized by the throat.

—

“I shall seize an odd

little waiter by the throat and order my fate.”

=

Bruce McTague

——–

In the end.

You have a choice with regard to your fate …and that’s to show up and make some choices … make some leaps of faith.

I cannot suggest nor guarantee that all choices will be good or even guide you well … but making choices at least means your fate is a little less in the hands of some odd little waiters serving you things you haven’t ordered.

I will be honest.

In today’s world, today’s environment, I am hesitant to leave my fate in the hands of some odd little waiters bringing me things I my not like.

“We are torn between nostalgia for the familiar and an urge for the foreign and strange. As often as not, we are homesick most for the places we have never known.”

—–

Carson Mccullers

=============

Well.

The number one challenge to progress & “living in the present” is old things.

Ok.

Not old things, per se, but how the idea of old things resides in our heads, hearts & minds.

For some reason old things have this incredible knack to not only gain value over time but also increase our hunger for them.

Sure.

Not all things.

Some old things suck, we know they suck and are glad to leave them in some scrap heap in the rear view mirror.

But the old things that didn’t suck?

Whew.

Memories and old things have an incredible magical way of shedding the bad and accumulating good.

Okay.

Maybe they don’t accumulate good but rather ‘basic familiarity’ or ‘low level contentment’ inevitably take on a disproportionately positive value.

They become slightly twisted totems that people are clearly drawn to and become touchstones of ‘when things were better.’

Shit.

“when things were better.”

Who wouldn’t have a hunger for that?

The problem is that I don’t think what most people realize, or maybe recognize, is that it is ideas and thinking which create the light that eliminates the darkness of the fear of the unknown, that new inevitably outshines old … and that nostalgia is best found, mostly, when you find new familiar things and new habits to replace them.

I, personally, have never really seen the allure of most old things. I love old buildings and love museums but, to me, they are simply way stations to new ideas, new thinking and new behavior.

To me the old seems muted and I desire to live loud & bold.

===========

“If you ask me what I came to do in this world, I, an artist, will answer you: I am here to live out loud.”

–

Émile Zola

=================

All that said.

I understand the fact old things have a strange hunger to many people.

In fact.

I would argue that ‘old things’ is an equal opportunity employer.

What I mean by that is we far too often conflate the desire for old things, or holding on to what was old, with generations.

Old people hunger for old things and younger people hunger for new things.

This is simplistically misguided thinking.

When we do this we miss the bigger challenge old things place in front of us. Old things have an insatiable hunger for the human desire for familiarity and the desire for security that can be found within each and every one of us. That insatiable hunger sits in our stomachs and minds in a variety of ways and degrees depending on the individual … regardless of their age.

That hunger resides in older people AND younger people.

Ignoring that means ignoring some basic realities which can be quite costly as you make observations, decision and choices.

This is particularly true in business.

Look.

All of us, everyone, even the riskiest of risk takers like having some safety net.

Not all safety nets are created equal or look similar … but 99.9% of us seek some version of a safety net.

Old things tend to offer us that safety net.

I say that so when we start ridiculing someone, old or young, for appearing to hunger a little too much for old things that maybe we … well … stop ridiculing and start thinking about it a little.

Maybe all someone is doing is seeking their version of a safety net.

Maybe they are seeking something a little familiar and maybe something that offers a little mental security in a world which, frankly, seems to consistently try and demolish all that is familiar & secure.

As I noted when I wrote about ‘optimal newness’ we all desire, and like, some balance. We all find comfort in familiarity and some versions of nostalgia and find excitement in something new.

Old things have a strange hunger for the desire for some familiarity & some ‘secured clarity’ that resides in every single person.

As a studier of behaviors and attitudes I pay attention to this.

As a business guy I pay attention to this.

Old things have earned the right to be totems of times better and familiar.

We should allow them their hunger.

And, yet, as with almost everything in Life … we need to insure people, individuals, manage their diet in order to live healthy lives and have healthy professional careers.

As I just told a business leader last week who was expressing frustration with regard to how some employees were ‘holding on to old things with ragged claws’ … people aren’t nostalgic for old memories they are more nostalgic for familiarity & security.

If you can offer them the same with new things, old things lose their luster.

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

Think what you want and say what you want to say about Kissinger … but the opening quote is awesome <although, geologically speaking, it may not be truly accurate>.

In our quest for recognition as a leader many business people, and leaders in general, seemingly get shoved <on seemingly a daily basis> into some absurd universe where everyone judges you <mostly on some absurd views of ‘being noticed is what matters’ or ‘shine bright like a diamond‘>. I say that because this means thinking of yourself as a piece of coal seems … well … quite underwhelming and quite ‘unleaderly’ <I made that word up>.

Uhm.

But.

One of the most frustrating things you learn early on in a management career path is that you do not get credit for what you are expected to do.

And maybe what makes this most frustrating is that this lesson applies to a crisis as well as the most mundane everyday grind responsibilities.

But.

The thing is as you gain more and more responsibility you learn that this is actually a good thing.

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

People like you doing what you are supposed to do <with little fanfare>.

This is a lesson learned early on in a management career … and you can tell the leaders who <a> did not learn it or <b> saw the lesson but lack self-confidence … because they … well … ignore the lesson and exhibit ongoing aggravating self promotion <even on the things they are expected to do>.

That said.

This doesn’t mean you aren’t tempted to take amount or two to point out in some fairly loud messaging that you want some credit for what you are doing.

This is the ‘dance.’ The management & leader “credit dance.’ I call it a dance because every good leader knows they have to do some self-public relations and, yet, they don’t want to be seen as doing any overt self-public relations.

===============

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

Being a great leader is all about doing your job and doing the right things at the right time … and <I imagine> figuring out how to actually tell people that you did the right things at the right time. This means not being seen a as blowing your own horn or being some narcissistic attention seeking, credit seeking asshat but rather one who understands it really isn’t about gaining credit or accolades but rather reassuring people that the right things, the good things, just get done under your watch.

I would note that reassurance is a powerful tool.

It is powerful because doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … but if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all and, yet, feel reassured that you are there.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert a ‘huh?!?’ here> because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck.

The truth is that the value is never in the credit. And leaders know that. And we everyday schmucks need to remind ourselves of that more often.

—-

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

————

Leaders know that the little things can matter and that just delivering upon what you are supposed to do really matters <a lot>.

A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. Doing what you are supposed to do insures the right ripples are always … well … rippling.

Good leaders know you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

I would note that within the realm of doing what you are supposed to do about the only thing that can truly diminish ‘greatness of simple doing’ is not accepting responsibility – for the bad and the good and all that it takes to get to either place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that what I just stated is ‘character’.

Leaders don’t lead by asking or telling people to follow it most often happens by doing the shit you are supposed to do really well.

I know. I know. that doesn’t sound “great” but greatness really cannot be achieved without it.

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

Huge ego. MASSIVE ego. Charismatic speaker. Maybe one of the greatest orators of all time. Made some huge mistakes. HUGE mistakes.

But humble in his responsibility. He permitted the people to get credit for success and strength and what needed to be done … all the while doing what he as supposed to be doing.

He was vocal, and sincere, on issues and the people of Great Britain getting credit.

All despite his ego.

Great leadership reflects a unique balance of ego and humility.

Ego to effectively lead and humility to be effectively followed.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere on the line between those two things.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere in between not getting credit for what they are supposed to do and actually being acknowledged for enabling greater greatness.

Well.

I know it isn’t popular to say this but most of the best things in Life, and leadership, are found in the unspectacular:

The best people more often than not go unseen and unnoticed by the majority.

The best moments more often than not go unseen until looking back.

Just as perfection is most often found in the imperfections … spectacular is most often found in the unspectacular. And, yes, doing what you are supposed to do is unspectacular.

But I would argue the spectacular would never ever happen if the ‘supposed to do’ shit never happened.

In the end.

Great leaders are often judged by what you don’t see them doing. This also means great leaders are often judged by what they feel comfortable remaining silent about … by what they don’t say about what they are supposed to do and supposed to be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a little more difficult than it may appear. It is a little more difficult because a great leader does have to have some ego and some higher level of confidence and, therefore, some positive affirmation kind of helps to put some well needed oxygen back into the confidence balloon.

It takes a awhile to learn you don’t have to ask for oxygen or even try and fill it yourself … well … at least good leaders learn that … the bad, insecure ones never do.

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better. Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect.

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.”

—–

Bruce McTague

=======================

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.”

And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note:<a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way.

These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new.

This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts.

This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important.

It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label.

And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects.

The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said.

I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle?

Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas.

This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation … which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s bullshit.

The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into.

I say that with two thoughts in mind:

something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway.

In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked.

This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this.

New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something.

I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it.

Conventions train us to do the conventional.

I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar.

All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.”

Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of.

The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless.

I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success.

I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness.’

That the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>.

Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard.

All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’ I get a lot of cocked heads as they think about it a little.

“But if these years have taught me anything it is this: you can never run away.

Not ever.

The only way out, is in.”

–

Junot Diaz

===================

Ok.

I don’t know the specific number, but my guess is about 85 to 90% of people know that the best place to look for a hero is within <even though they may not articulate it that way>.

We know that most times no one is going to suddenly appear in the time of need and that we better think of the way out all by our little lonesome self and our own pea like brain.

We know that the best way out of almost any problem in Life is to seek the answer from within … not with out.

And, yes, there are most likely 10 to 15% of the people who are fucked whenever there is a problem because they are always looking for someone to get them out of whatever problem they have found themselves in.

That said.

Even those of us who know you can never really run away and that you have to face whatever it is you have to face like to have a “superman” <or superwoman … okay … a superperson> show up on occasion.

Let’s just admit it.

Sometimes we need some help. Not all the time … just sometimes. And, most of us will admit, we don’t actually need the help on the toughest most difficult moment, per se, but rather the toughest most difficult personal moments.

What I mean by that is 99% of us can survive almost any challenge – no matter the depth & breadth of the challenge – if we are refreshed, fresh & focused.

The problems occur when … well … we are not refreshed, fresh or focused. I call these the moments in which we are not the best version of our “meet the challenge” self.

It’s not that you aren’t capable of meeting the challenge. Shit. It doesn’t mean you are shirking the challenge itself. Nor are you even being lazy or self-deprecating or anything other than … ‘not at the best I need to be to meet this particular challenge.’

Those are the moments you sort of look around for a superperson to appear. You not only start peeking inside phone booths but … well … you start poking around everywhere looking for some fucking super person to put on some cape and step up and help out.

And maybe that is the point of the first quote/poem I share upfront. Most superpeople don’t wear capes nor do they have snazzy outfit with a big “S” on the chest but rather they are some less-than-imposing looking guy or gal who just has their shit together – and they just happen to be there at the right time.

And maybe that is the point of the second quote I share upfront. You rarely find these superpeople if you are running away. This happens for a variety of reasons but I would suggest this happens mainly because in your haste to get away from whatever problem you are running away from along with your semi-desparate desire for some help <and some superperson> you are casting about wildly for someone with a big fucking “S” on their chest. This means you are most likely running by a shitload of less-than-imposing superpeople who would do you right if you would stop and let them help. Therefore, if you do not run away, do not look for a way out … well … 90+% of the time someone will step in and help.

By the way … I am pretty confident saying this.

Why?

Well.

Superpeople like people who do not run away.

Superpeople gravitate to people who don’t look for a way out, don’t look for someone or something to blame and don’t look to find someone to take responsibility for the challenge ahead.

Superpeople can sense character like a bee senses honey.

Look.

We all need a superperson on occasion.

Everyone.

And I would suggest even knowing that you shouldn’t search for superpeople nor should you seek to surround yourself with superpeople … you should simply seek to be the best version of yourself, place an immense value on your own sense of character … and … well … superpeople will find you.

Conversely, I would suggest, you can recognize someone of low character because … well … the real superpeople cannot be found anywhere around them … even in their time of need.

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.”

—

Steve Maraboli

=============

“You will find out who you are not a thousand times, before you ever discover who you are.”

—–

William Chapman

=============

Yeah.

I have to comment on Donald Jr agreeing to meet with someone who clearly stated they were part of a Russian initiative to support Trump and may have information <illegally gained or legally gained?> to sink Hillary Clinton.

I have to comment because this, to me, in a nutshell captures the essence of what Trump represents and what we in America need to think about as part of a soul searching exercise.

From my standpoint it boils down to one question of what is more important to Americans — a) being legally correct <or just okay> or <b> being morally okay.

Trump ran a ‘win at any cost/no rules’ campaign <which is exactly how he runs his business> and … well … we Americans need to decide whether this represents who and what we are.

I say that because it seems like we continuously miss the bigger issue as we turn ourselves into pretzels either trying to prove some criminal guilt or, conversely, prove criminal innocence.

While that is important from a legal standpoint America has never stood for “playing within the fringes of the rules” <let alone ‘no rules’>.

Sure.

Some do but 90+% of Americans abhor people who win by some technicality or skate by on some cringe worthy fringe legal basis.

I would suggest people think about this Trump Jr. meeting in one of these ways:

Someone steals a test and offers it to your high school child <and I believe West Point has a clear point of view on this>

Someone steals private photos off someone’s phone and posts them online <or offers to sell them to you exclusively>

Someone steals the other high school team’s game plan and offers it to you before the game <and you tell your players how you got it?>

Or how about this one for adults …

Someone steals a patented process from some company and they offer to give it to you so they lose their exclusivity <and you can compete directly> — note: this is against the law

Let me be clear.

Sure.

It happens in the business world. We do some crappy shit on occasion.

Mostly we do it behind closed doors and don’t tell anyone because we know it is either legally suspect and absolutely morally an embarrassment.

We certainly do not go home and sit our children down at the dinner table and say “this is the right way to do it.”

My point is that “winning” is not just about that moment in time, that game and that competition. It has ripples in which … well … our youth watches, learns and decides how they want to play the game for the rest of their Life.

It is absurd to believe “I won” justifies all behavior and justifies the lessons being taught to those who will follow.

And Americans know this in their hearts if not their souls.

I personally think the Trump clan is free of any morals and just think in terms of power and in terms of making deals for their own financial benefit, not to serve the country’s strategic interests, and the win is all that matters <at any cost and in any way>.

I do not loathe Trump or anyone who cruises on the Trump ship of fools but I loathe the absence of integrity, dignity and, in general, their incapability to win by playing by the rules.

I do not loathe Trump or anyone who cruises on the Trump ship of fools but I loathe the fact they believe their hollow way of conducting themselves will make America great again <and all it will do is make it hollow>.

That said.

I have debated what makes America exceptional, or great, with dozens and dozens of people. Most find it either odd, or interesting, in that while I acknowledge morality and freedoms and democracy I tend to focus more on a pragmatic aspect – how you play the game of Life & business in America.

Or maybe I could call it “freedom to win” because in America we foster a belief that how you win matters therefore anyone can win.

The corollary to that thought is when something becomes “rigged” that translates into “some people are not playing the game the American way” therefore we get angry.

I argue it this way because … well … it is a simplistic idea, easy to grasp, for an everyday schmuck like me … and I tend to believe most of us every day schmucks don’t want to be too philosophical or intellectual.

By the way. My belief in this American identity isn’t something I just pulled out of my ass.

The most pragmatic truth about America and its identity is that America’s founding fathers wanted to do shit <Just Do It>. And they realized that if the country offered everyone the opportunity to do shit, and as much doing as they could, the country itself would prosper … and everyone would prosper in their “pursuit of happiness” <which is inevitably grounded in some vision of doing some shit>.

In order to create this equal opportunity to ‘do’ within the “we the people” … they established the American way to play the game. In this game we could choose captains and coaches if we wanted but the foundation was that on day one anyone could become a captain or coach if they wanted … or they could just pursue happiness of doing shit however they wanted.

Rigid constitutionalists will most likely hate what I am going to say next but, to me, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were developed as kind of our league’s rules of the game & engagement. Not to be taken literally but to establish a foundation from which all the players and teams could compete fairly.

I would note here that whether you like the way I am saying this or not … if I were a betting man I would put a lot of money on the belief the everyday schmuck would be more likely to ‘get’ this than all the politicians blathering about rights & privileges & constitutionally legal intellectual mumbo jumbo.

To be clear.

Trump doesn’t believe this nor do I believe he would even understand half this shit I just typed … but he would instinctually abhor the idea as he is the ultimate spokesperson for “win at any cost.”

And now is where I am gonna get in trouble with a lot of people because I am going to bring up Obama.

I believe there needs to be a counterbalance to the Trump “just win” megaphone and there needs to be a voice of clarity for “how you win matters is not just a theoretical discussion but it is actually a pragmatic discussion of what is at the core of who and what America is.”

And I cannot think of anyone better than Obama to frame that narrative – not as anti-Trump but to pose the challenge to America.

I do believe Obama has an opportunity to frame the narrative with regard to a discussion which becomes the foundation in every home, business, government and playing field – the American identity. But, in my eyes, he cannot, and shouldn’t, do it under moral imperatives or “what is right thing to do” but do it in the cultural identity of America which is “doing.”

To me it is the intellectual spin of Trump’s dumbed down version of the discussion. Trump talks wins but we should be talking about how we win because it gets to the idea of who and what America is and not simply results and ‘doing outcomes.’

What Trump doesn’t understand is that America is an idea and not a bunch of transactions. He believes if he can create enough ‘positive transactions’ that people will view him as a success, and America as a success, because the balance sheet will say “success.” This treats America like a commodity with no ‘value’ <which, by the way, is not an expression of exceptionalism just ‘exceptional doers’>.

We are not a bunch of transactions and jobs … we are an idea. And, to me, that idea is “winning the right way.”

The American identity has always been about doing shit the right way and winning the right way. That is our sweet spot and it defines how we think we are exceptional <at least to the nonintellectual everyday schmucks like me>.

We are forgiving, slightly, to those who win on some technicality or ‘technically legal’ thing … but even then … we debate whether it was winning by being smarter … or by ‘cheating’ in some way.

Regardless … this debate inevitably ends with a general feeling that the win “just wasn’t completely right’ <or … “it wasn’t a good win”>.

You can get away with this on occasion.

Someone who always wins on technicalities or does shit always just within what could be construed as legal is always a “shady winner” or someone “gaming the system.” We don’t like these people.

And then, of course, there are others who play by non – American rules. They win on occasion but it is only because they couldn’t win by playing by our rules and within our behavioral boundaries.

That is who and what we are and Trump is challenging that.

I believe we would all benefit from this debate.

No.

I KNOW we would all benefit from this debate.

Everyone.

I admit. I am banking on the fact Trump loses in this debate and Republicans and Democrats will win by having the debate <and therefore America wins>.

Now.

Back to Obama.

He becomes the “Framer in Chief.” Framing the well needed discussion of America identity … but in different terms than what we have tried before. It is not about moral superiority but rather digs deep into the ‘code of who and what America is.’ We are the “just do it” country <I encourage everyone to pick up Clotairre Rapaille’s “The Culture Code”, avoid the wacky aspects and hunker down on the insightful parts>.

We are impatient, we like to do and we are perpetually dissatisfied. And, yet, all that said … our exceptionalism resides in HOW we do shit. In our heart of hearts we know that anyone can ‘do’, but we Americans ‘do it the right way’ therefore our outcomes, our work and our ‘wins’ are better and more exceptional because we do them the right way.

We forget this, just as any sports team who hasn’t won a frickin game in forever, when some asshat comes along and says we are losers and we need to do whatever it takes to win.

But ‘just win’ goes counter to what any high school football coach teaches his team, what any parent teaches their kid, what every general instills in their soldiers, what every good business leader cultivates within their organization … we recognize that in the end wins are hollow if we haven’t played the game right, it was fair and we didn’t cheat <or lower ourselves to the way cheaters and assholes play>. We play tough, we will always be competitive and we will ‘do’ and win ON OUR TERMS.

Trump encourages us to let others define America’s terms.

What a dick.

America’s wins should be better than everyone else’s wins because … well … we are the shining light on the hill for an impatient, doing, perpetually dissatisfied way of winning the right way.

I believe Obama could frame this discussion better than anyone I know <even me … and I am passionate on this topic>.

But he has to do this as an ex-president and not a democrat.

As a president, with 8 years under his belt, he has to be cognizant of the fact everything he says from here on out will be judged against “was what he did best for 330 million people or just Democrats.” Therefore to step back in he cannot be a Democrat but rather an ‘advocate for what is best for 330 million people’ messenger. That doesn’t mean he cannot frame the message so that Democrats have an advantage but it is almost like he has to establish the game and then let Trump, Republicans and Democrats duke it out on the field <and let the best player win>.

That said.

To me.

“How you play the game, and win, matters” <or, “winning at any cost is not American”> is an effective framing of American identity which puts Republicans at a disadvantage because they will get trapped between what they want to say <and what I imagine many of them truly believe> and Trump.

I also think it provides Democrats an easy way to reframe what Trump wants to do but because he is too stupid they can frame it in a way that appeals to tangible outcomes, results, programs & policies rather than simple platitudes.

For example.

Trump is too stupid to realize that he could talk about healthcare in economic terms instead of getting into that wretched ‘is healthcare a right or a privilege’ discussion.

America is an economic engine. And as any business owner will tell you the more days healthy happy employees are at work the more productive they are <and the more productive the company is>. Business owners would kill to limit absenteeism and increase productivity when an employee is at work.

The day I can get all 180 employees, or 18, at work, 100% healthy, is the day my business is most productive.

That is what healthcare does.

Extrapolate that out to America itself. The day I can get 180 million working people at work, 100% healthy, is the day that America is at its most productive. While healthcare is certainly a moral issue it is also an economic productivity issue. If everyone in America is healthy, than our economy is healthy.

Frame the discussion this way and it gets us stop talking about ‘mean’ and ‘cruel’ and start talking benefits.

This is an excellent example of insuring that everyone in America has a chance to win by playing the game the right way <and insuring someone doesn’t win simply because of a technicality>.

Beyond that one example … how you play the game matters extends into education, opportunity in general, how government conducts itself, the military, well, someone smarter than I can bring the idea to Life in any tactical & policy discussion you want.

And I bet Obama could frame it better than I ever could.

This idea also plays into an overall theme of “u pluribus unim” … if we all have opportunities, maximize our potential by playing the game right when given an opportunity and working hard, the many ‘ones’ doing it the right way means “the one” <America> is great <or exceptional>. Therefore … “Great” is defined not by some nebulous Trumpism but rather by something anyone and everyone can do, talk about and judge others by <and Trump will inevitably judged harshly on this standard>.

Uhm.

This idea comes at a cost to Obama if Democrats or he embraces it. He would have to reflect upon his 8 years critically and preemptively, and not defensively, note where “I focused on the win too much and forgot that we, in America, do it the hard way and play the game right.” He would have to eat some executive order shit and maybe some other things. Yeah. He could surely point to one or two “I won on a technicality” with some solid rationale for why but for this framing to be solidly grounded he will have to eat some stuff he did.

But you know what? America tends to give you one “get out of jail free” card … just one … if you handle it right <and Obama most likely could>.

But.

This is not a “here is what Democrats stand for” message but rather an “identity of America” discussion of which he is framing.

This is not anti Trump but rather … “look, we are talking about a lot of transactions and tactics and jobs and policies and programs not a lot about how we should go about doing it so that everyone has a chance of winning.”

This is not an anti-Trump position. This is a “decide who you want to be America and judge your leaders based on who you want to be” message. We need this discussion and debate. I worry that the soul of America is under attack and I am banking on the fact what is right can beat what is wrong as long as they both enter the playing field – someone just needs to bring them both there.

Yeah.

I think Obama … and Michelle too … could deliver this in a way that would create dinner table, hallway and classroom discussion for months to come.

And I think this is the kind of message they would be powerful delivering … to moms, dads, teachers, coaches, programmers, blue collar workers, students, etc.

Anyway.

Trump Jr behavior, which I think is indicative of Trump Sr behavior, reminded me once again that HOW we do shit matters.

This is about norms, and normal behavior, versus simple legality.

We set out explicit rules and guidelines and sometimes these appear as laws.

They are meant to showcase a red line for behavior.

And, boy oh boy … we sure do bitch about how many laws we have and how many regulations are in place and how many rules we face that curb our success. The government is most likely the main villain in this story.

Sadly … most of us act like government sits around coming up with rules and laws and regulations simply to stifle freedom in our lives – personal and business.

It may behoove us to think a little more about why those rules , regulations and laws came about and how we still have some room to navigate that which is a fairly large playing field called “norms.”

Norms, in my pea like brain, reside inside a buffer zone which lies in the area just prior to reaching one of these red lines. They are usually unstated and they are usually simply expected for those who uphold some integrity and they are usually just done by people who have some inner sense of ‘right.’

Trump reminds me of some people who I have worked with who have constantly suggested “but it is legal.” And, 90% of the time, I have felt uneasy about what we were about to do. Not that it was illegal but rather it <a> tested what I would consider a norm and <b> it was clearly in that buffer zone that got too close to the red line.

Yeah.

There will always be people who will dance on the icy brink of the red line and these same people will dance while singing “it is legal.”

It is a hollow song to sing.

Let’s just say there are two basic types of people:

Those who see norms, and normative behavior, and see it as guidelines for right or wrong <and subsequently check laws, rules and regulations to be sure all is good & legal>. In other words behavior doesn’t have to be dictated by some rule or law but more often than not “what seem like the right thing to do.”

Those who see “anything that could be deemed legal”, or, conversely, “if it is not expressly forbidden than it is permissible”. These people don’t ever ponder “what seems like the right thing to do” because, to them, if it is legal it is right. In other words … if bad actions do not amount to crimes than it is good enough to do to earn a win/reward.

……… choose to be strong …

That is actually the choice America needs to make with regard to its identity – which represents who and what we are.

This is a moment. A moment for America to look in the mirror and decide what kind of person they want to be.

All I know is I do not want to look in the mirror and see Donald Trump Jr. looking back at me.

But that’s me.

Everyone needs to make their own decision … I just think someone needs to stand up an tell everyone “now is the time we all need to look in the mirror.”

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking.

Those things were not done by gut instinct.

Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.”

—-

Brian Cox

================

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

—–

Martin Luther King

==================

Well.

I seem to find myself in more arguments and debates and discussions with regard to common sense, gut instinct and actual “learning” <knowledge> than is most likely healthy for me.

My sense is that I am not the only one.

To be clear.

For those who care to research it, in general, our instincts suck.

For those who care to research it, in general, common sense is most typically not that common <or representative of reality & truth> nor does it make sense <unless you are looking back at what has been done and not forward thinking about what could be done>.

For those who care to research it, in general, learned people <either formal knowledge gathering or informal incessant curiosity knowledge seekers> tend to be more right more often and less right less often.

For those who care to research it, in general, sincere ignorance has reached plague proportions.

I sometimes feel like we, in America, mistakenly wandered back into a cave.

And in that cave we can find shelves filled with sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity available for anyone to take.

Now.

We do not lack for excuses for not knowing shit we should know or investing some energy to gain some well needed knowledge.

So while they may be representative of sincere actions they are also representative of sincere purposeful excuses from … well … the strenuous job of thinking.

From an intellectual standpoint this means we remain in a continuous doom loop of Hegelian Dialectic … never leaving the loop … which means ignorance is always at hand and reality is always out of reach.

From this post’s perspective this doom loop encourages us to stay in the cave we are in and just believe what we believe and use our energy for anything other than thinking because we need energy for anything other than thinking.

What you believe to be true, is it true?

Or do you just believe that it is true because you were taught that it was true and you never looked any further?

Sad.

It is sad because we seem to have lost the ability to think. It may be even sadder that we have purposefully decided to abstain from thinking.

And, overall, it’s sad because where we should see thinking and thoughtfulness we only see faux intellectualism and random absurd theories.

It is sad because all of this suggests our mental limits are some simplistic tripe soundbites and clever labels <which I would suggest are poorly understood heuristic propaganda tools>.

We seem to have forgotten that what most likely got us out of the cave was … well … enlightened conflict. And when I say conflict I mean ‘what you think versus what I think’& ‘what you know versus what you could know’ because all the rest is simply trappings and identity crap.

For it was within the conflict of ideas and debate in which the people in the cave learned … and unlearned … which inevitably got all of us people to leave the frickin’ cave.

As I have written before there is certainly a battle going on with regard to being an expert <and believed> and certainly anything associated with ‘intellectual’ is poisoned in everyday households.

=============

“An intellectual? Yes.

And never deny it.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.”

——

Albert Camus

======================

I could argue we stay in the cave for a variety of reasons but today I will suggest that true thinking has taken a back seat to greed and self-interest <which is less about thinking and more about outcomes>.

The effect of this is that a shitload of people really have no knowledge of their own. And that leads to a mind & thought process almost solely grounded in common opinion.

Well.

If thought is a commodity than from that point on the objective of greed & self-interest isn’t about thinking … it is simply about playing the game well <and winning>.

The problem with this is that in any game there are winners and there are losers <even though everyone hopes to win>.

Uhm.

Games are for winners and losers.

Thinking is not a game.

Life is not a game.

Using popular numbers in today’s rhetoric t make my point … in a winner-take-all game, the top 0.1% win, the winners share some of their winnings with the 2nd and 3rd place winners <let’s call them the remaining people of the top 1%> and 99% are losers.

I imagine what I am suggesting is that a system that rewards only the top 1% winners ensures that everyone else loses which creates a sense that 99% of people just cannot think effectively <I am not sure how that is good for the emotional well-being of a society>..

Well.

I purposefully highlighted the Hegelian doom loop earlier because in that scenario we can think about … well … how to break this doom loop cycle.

And, yes, this takes some <gulp> thinking.

In my simplistic mind I focus on benefits. At the moment no one sees benefits in thinking, only seeing benefits in not thinking and playing some game.

We need to reprogram that which has conditioned us into this fixed and, frankly, limiting mindset.

Here is the simplest thing I can point to – reality.

Reality 1: If everyone, 100%, thinks and debates and creates new ideas and adapt status quo to new realities … well … 100% has a chance to win. And even the 99% who don’t really “win” tangibly will win by being part of the progress <this is not conceptual mumbo jumbo … this is what any business leader with half a brain knows and does with their employee base>.

Reality 2: If everyone, 100%, doesn’t think and maintains the way we do things now … well … 1% truly has a chance to win.

Oh. And once you enter the winners’ circle you actually increase the odds you will win again.

Oh. And once you become a 99% loser you actually increase the odds you will … uhm … lose again.

I have to tell ya.

Laid out like that and I am not so sure a shitload of people are gonna like option number 2.

Let’s face it.

We have become a “non-thinking” society as we have become, as a society, less people and more & more labels of some objectified economic relationship like producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, service providers and service users.

If you do not have one of those labels … well … you are an outcast.

Now. In America that ‘outcast’ group is relatively small.

Globally only a relatively small percentage of global population is participating in consumerism. The majority of population is struggling to meet the very basic requirements of life such as proper food, shelter and healthcare.

Mentally … we are now back in a cave.

Mentally … we are living in a state of denial and a sincere ignorance towards the fact that we have created a system where thinkers & thinking have little value and even less of a perceived potential reward to the majority of people. The result of that is the majority of the world then competes in a winner take all game in which those in power <past winners> tend create money out of thin air while owning as much as they want.

What this really means is that thinking is unnecessary to become rich.

<sad>

It only requires a person to be lucky to be born into a past winner family. Which means if you are in the 99% you can be a frickin’ genius and getting rich is still more like a game of chance where the odds of ‘winning’, becoming rich, through talent are very rare.

Well.

That is fucked up.

What we need to understand is that self-interest, competition and gaining profit at the expense of others, and thinking, is not particularly fair to the 100% but it is also not particularly helpful for any meaningful progress as a society.

What we need to understand is that we are all huddled in a cave.

We must stop following blindly the ideas of what we know but rather open our eyes to what we do not know.

Here is what I know.

If everyone is thinking, everyone is debating, everyone is questioning ‘gut instinct’ and common sense, 100% has a chance of winning and 100% will get better in some form or fashion.

In the world we live in today the thinkers are more likely to lose than some idiots who simply know how to play the game better. Think about that. Yeah. Think. That is fucked up. I want a world with smarter idiots, less sincere ignorance and thinkers to have a chance of winning on occasion.

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, charisma, character, smarts, etc.> to stay above the organization and employees. And I say “above” because part of leading is being able to see above the heads of everyone so that you can lead and align and step in when & where appropriate.

Above is not dominance per se just that you maintain a dominant position from which you can most effectively & efficiently lead.

Now.

Here is what any good leader knows … you don’t have to be big to … well … be big.

Heck. You don’t even have to act ‘big.’

In addition.

A good leader can leave the comfort of the ‘throne’, i.e. the trappings of the ‘bigness’ –the natural ‘dominance’ that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down from all those things.

However.

Not everyone is a good leader. And not every leader is particularly good at navigating the natural doubts <am I doing the right thing, am I doing the best thing, am I doing the thing I should be doing, etc.> that come along with being a leader. By the way … any good leader has some doubts on occasion … it keeps them grounded.

Regardless.

What that means is there will inevitably be business people who fear looking small. And they protect their illusions of ‘bigness’, or being bigly, mainly in several ways:

They diminish everyone they can in the attempt to make others as small as they can so that they look bigger no matter the comparison

They find a ‘safe space’ in which they place their metaphorical throne and make everyone come to them <this is kind of like the boss who purposefully has their desk built slightly higher and the chairs facing the desk slightly lower to insure they maintain a physical dominant position>

They avoid, as much as possible, one-on-one interactions with anyone their own size <unless they can control the environment>.

They ground themselves in platitudes under the guise of “flexibility & adaptability” so they can avoid having to defend anything specific with anyone who could diminish their bigness

Well.

Why I decided to write about this is … uhm … day in and day out Donald J Trump offers us in the business world reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership.

And the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to step down and still stay above.

Insecure leaders are extremely hesitant, if not completely resistant, to leaving their ‘dominant position.’

Let me explain ‘dominant position’ because it can sound bad <and it is mainly meant to express a position of authority>.

A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in most cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority”> combines all aspects.

Therefore the person in the dominant position combines substance & style. And this is where insecurity steps in … because if a leader has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics.

They will dial up their style aspects to cloak any substance deficiencies and become excruciatingly careful with regard to how they interact with other people.

But the one I thought about today was “stepping down.’

Let me explain.

I heard Donald J say the other day “they should call us to participate.” In other words … they need to come to me <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position.’

This was not a one-off comment.

He does this … every … frickin’ … day.

Trump never “goes to people” nor does he unite by inserting himself into any opposing groups <people who may not agree with him> opening himself up to say “let me be part of what you want.” I cannot envision him ever going to opposition and suggesting he wanted to work with them <they have to come to him>.

His whole leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ and he fears stepping down from his position because he fears it will expose the fact he isn’t really above anyone other than in title.

In other words … he fears looking small <or ‘not bigly’>.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they step down or go to people rather than make people go to them. They know there are no ‘little people’ but rather only big responsibilities of which everyone has.

Little people are little wherever they go … even if they just sit in the corner office.

Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this … and doesn’t know this.

What I mean by that is they can sense their littleness therefore they go out of their way to stay within whatever cocoon of ‘bigness trappings’ to encourage the belief they have that they are actually big. And, yet, they don’t know this because they tend to have an oversized view of themselves <every should come to me attitude>.

They see themselves through a fairly warped view of self-relevance … “everyone else becomes more relevant by being around me therefore they become bigger in my bigness.” And that partially outlines their main fear.

Loss of relevance.

Anyone who becomes more relevant than them is a danger. Loss of power, the illusion of or real, is the danger.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a “you need to come to me, call me or ask me” mentality.

Foreign dignitaries come to visit him <and he does not visit them>.

Democrats should call me instead of being obstructionists.

People need to visit him at the White House <or Mar a Lago>.

He never works with people or offers to meet them.

He treats everyone as if they should be subservient to him and if they do not meet that desire he is dismissive or even attacks them as ‘obstructionist.’

Let me be clear.

No sane business leader <in this generation> has this attitude.

You cannot.

You cannot because you know many of the people working for you are actually smarter than you and a shitload more just may know something you do not know.

You cannot because oftentimes your peers, who actually report to you, may actually be better than you at some things.

You cannot because you know that good people never want to feel subservient but rather want to feel being a key part of overall success.

Most of those who lead have learned these things not by attempting to learn to be ‘above’ but rather by learning how to lead. And you learn that mostly by getting into ‘the game’ and realizing you can play anywhere at any time. I know that I took an advertising job as a young newly promoted VP in NYC not out of any desire to be the best but because I was curious. I was curious to see if I could “play in the NYC advertising game.” I didn’t need to be the best nor did I desire to dominate … I just wanted to see if I could play.

I can tell you that once you become comfortable with knowing you can play at the biggest level and the lowest level you have a fighting chance to become a leader.

Look.

We all have numerous character flaws and it is a sad truth the majority of us can’t see them. This is even more difficult in a leadership position because you do naturally become more self-aware of any of the things you are good at and yet also not good at … but you also lean heavily on the things you ‘perceive’ got you where you are today.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness.

Looking at Trump it is easy to see that he grew up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. He lived in a bubble in which young, mentally lazy, rich, amoral white men routinely got away with whatever they wanted. These same characteristics are exhibited in his insecure leadership style.

Here is what I know.

Big leaders are big leaders.

And they are big because wherever they go they retain their bigness. That means they need not ‘stay above’ to be big … they can step down … sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t vote for you as well as sit down with peers and discuss ideas … and walk away just as big as they entered the room.

Small leaders cannot do those things, therefore, they do not.

I have now given you a way to judge big leaders from small leaders. Judge away. Every leader should be judged … and judged harshly … because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.